Why isn't anyone on the other side of the debate able to give me a brief description of what their ideas /concepts are? I got the point that they are outside of science, but can't they be described in a post here?
I've been asking questions, and I'm called incurious?
If you have information or something to convey, and I'm failing to get it, it is your failure as much as mine, you know. At least mine is acknowledged. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Now what was your point again?
See Vedic Mathematics. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
I really do not want to incur your wrath again. But I am simply trying to represent an alternative point of view that I believe to be important and, in the long run, contribute to defining what change should be - because I think we can all agree that 'changing the game' is what we are all about. We just disagree on the methods. You can't be me, I'm taken
I cannot spell it out. As several have argued, maybe you don't have to get it, but be it or do it.
Or maybe I can - in another frustrating manner. You insist on reason. I insist on poetry. You insist on boxing. I insist on wrestling. You insist on the external. I insist on the internal. You like sanity. I like insanity. You like logic, I like anomalies.
But the only real difference between us (the above are not real differences in the human scale of love), is that you are not me. You can't be me, I'm taken
